getting back on topic, if I may be so bold as to try and boil down your
points adrian:
people look to the W3C with regards to (accessible) standards, but you
don't agree with that view because a) up until version 4 HTML was not
accessible; b) HTML/XHTML is limited due to its inherent tree structure;
c) CSS does not (yet) support more (complex?) layouts, has
confusing/inconsistent naming of style rules, and is not a programming
language
leaving b) aside (although, in marking up content, i have to admit i
have never come across a situation in which the tree-like structure of
HTML has limited me, but maybe that's just because i'm stuck in the
paradigm)...my question is: so what's the alternative? accepting that
the W3C has, for better or worse, brought about some form of conformity
and standard, what would your suggested course of action be now that you
feel it has gone stale? a completely new standards body? an approach
similar to WHATWG (we'll just go off and make HTML 5)? and crucially in
my view: how is any alternative going to get broad industry adoption if
even years down the line browsers like IE haven't even fully implemented
certain aspects of HTML (sensible support for OBJECT, or ABBR for
instance) and CSS 2?
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
reÂ·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com